Here is an updated plot of the same section that includes more of the sensors. Next I will add in the next segments of time.
In this time segment, you can now see where the excitations occurred. Also, the filtered radiation channels have been added.
MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH
-
-
Next update in time:
It is strange how the pressure went to 0 by 600°C, then shot up at 700°C as the LiH and Al melted. Then the pressure rose rapidly and dropped like a rock at 750°C with no other event - the valve has been closed (regulating at 90 PSIA) since above140°C. That precipitous fall in pressure was not the valve opening - it is still set to regulate at 90 PSIA. At 1000°C, the regulation pressure will be set to 9 PSIA, but the expectation is that the pressure will already be at or below this value.
-
Have been making these plots in excel and I am having trouble adding more data. That's why it is taking so long to get another plot.
-
Here is an updated plot (finally!). The data consists of 120k samples (and it is not done), but excel really only wants to have 32k points in the plot for each curve. I had to calculate a sparse data set and make adjustments in some cases because points were being missed, particularly in the sensing of the excitation current waveform. Now resolved. I also cropped a lot of the transients out of the graph of COP. The reactor still has a couple of cooling hours of data yet to go. Here is the overall curve:
Unfortunately, while there are interesting features in the experiment, there appears to have been no excess heat. There was tremendous absorption between 350°C (~Ni's curie point) and 650°C; so much absorption that it went from 90 PSIA to 0 PSIA (vacuum). Then the pressure rebounded and sharply fell all by itself. In the settled portions the COP was always 1.0. There was no evidence that the stimulation induced any LENR. The radiation detection from the SI-8B pancake detector (GM) seems to have a broad reduction when the H2 was totally absorbed while the scintillator showed no variation. Note that the GM tube is sensitive down to about 5 keV while the scintillator does not register much below 30 keV. The GM count variation is significant (meaning not noise) and mysteriously occurred right in the dip of the absorption.
-
Bob have you calculated the maximum pressure you could reach with powder's quantity you fill in relation with dead volume then without any event also ?
Hi David. The pressure could get high - to >1000 PSIA if all of the H2 was released from the hydride. However, what really occurs is that as the pressure goes up, and at a given temperature, an equilibrium is reached, and all of the H2 is not released from the hydride. While I haven't run and experiment that would let the pressure go up to that high pressure equilibrium, I cite the !Bang experiment that had no regulator - it exploded. What I saw in this experiment is that a lot of gas was initially released and I had the pressure limited to 90 PSIA by back pressure regulator venting. After the pressure fell below 90 PSIA, the valve was completely closed and all of the remaining pressure change was caused by absorption.
-
@David Fojt
I don't think it is necessary to avoid the LAH to limit the pressure, just regulate it (to exhaust) above the desired maximum pressure. If you use LiH instead, you just won't get as much gas. Interestingly, it seems A. Parkhomov's latest experiments have been showing XH without any Li at all and with the same carbonyl Ni powder he has been using. I think a report is coming on this at Asti. I think Me356 has also said that the Li was not needed. If the Li is not needed in the reaction, perhaps it would be better to eliminate the Al which will cause the Li to not wet to the Ni (argument to use pure LiH as you suggest). I believe Me356 also said that the Al detracts from the XH.
-
So far so good! If it was easy anyone could do it. What's next?
-
-
Have you read this poster from the Italy conference that starts tomorrow?
http://www.iscmns.org/work12/TakahashiAeffectofsu.pdf
It suggests two metals in the fuel, ie Cu and Ni.
But I think not give up on the current device. Me356 said about the AURA-test that fuel get's prepared by the run, so a really long run with temp cycles might show something.
-
Yes, one of my clients has suggested 3 or 4 very slow ramps up to 1000C does the trick.
-
Here are some final curves - first a full view, and second a zoom in the high temperature region:
-
Yes, one of my clients has suggested 3 or 4 very slow ramps up to 1000C does the trick.
How slow is slow?
-
1C/Minute all the way from ambient to 1000. Which over the space of 3 or 4 runs takes awhile.
-
I think I am going to write a script for cycling and start a run with the same fuel this week.
-
If find something interesting in geiger maybe cycling also that temps?
Maybe cycling pressure with cycling temp 700-750C region?
GS5.2 fuel pretreatment/baking?
-
I have just begun a new experiment that will run for about the next 3 days. Data will be stored in the Google drive Experiments folder having the name "Experiment_Cycle_20170609". Here is the programmed profile for the run:
Aside for looking for XH, it will be interesting to see if the broad dips in the GM counts occur and the broad changes in pressure. During this experiment, no gas will be released. The fuel is the same as the previous run - I.E. I have not removed the reactor tube or its contents. It is a re-heating with the ash from the previous experiment (AH50 Ni + LAH + Li metal).
-
@David Fojt
Of course, that can only be done in a future experiment. This experiment is already closed and running - the plane has left the gate.
-
Bob best wishes as always. Anything that can be learned helps us. I hope some day you will give us a theory thread so I can understand deeper. I honestly love what you are trying to do. I have to be honest, you are the only one I have faith in now that understands that it works, we need to crack it. Your work very simply is in a league of its own.
I think you have singlehandedly raised the bar. You have big shoulders my man. Keep it going.
-
I have stopped this experiment. As you know (I think I said), this experiment was a re-heat of the previous experiment's endpoint. What I saw during the first cycle was no significant variation in pressure, which hovered around 10 PSIA. To me, this meant that the tube has likely breached. In fact, I now think the tube cracked at this point in the previous (initial heating) in the original experiment:
In this first heating event, the pressure rose to nearly 90 PSIA while hot (~700C) and then fell in a sharp and unexpected manner. Notice how the pressure settles out just above 10 PSIA after the event. Atmospheric pressure here is about 10.6 PSIA. Also, at the end of the experiment, there was a brief evacuation, but the pressure never showed a dip. On cycling over temperature in this re-heat experiment, the pressure was constantly around 10 PSIA. I suspect that the extra metallic Li that was added to the fuel must have affected the alumina tube integrity, which resulted in a crack. I will be disassembling the system today and will do a postmortem analysis.
-
@David Fojt
David, I have not had this problem before with LAH. This problem only occurred when the metallic Li was added. I am going to dissect and look for weakening from the inside. My past experiment plan was to use a SS tube. The SS tube was found to oxidize completely through - from the outside - when it was heated in air to over 1000°C. If I was running experiments below 600°C, the SS tubes would be a good choice. If the SS tube were really thick, it might work OK to higher temperature. My understanding is that Li will also attack SS. What is reported to work best with Li is a pure iron tube, but pure iron is nearly impossible to find.
I have just disassembled the system and removed the reactor tube. It has a spiral fracture around the tube that leaked out the gas. Here are a couple of photos:
